The 7th United Nations Environment Assembly recently concluded in Nairobi, bringing together nearly 6,000 global delegates to deliver a critical roadmap for Earth’s future at a pivotal moment. The adopted “Medium-Term Strategy for the Environment 2026-2029” transcends being a routine procedural document—it represents a collective political commitment grounded in stark realities. At its core, the strategy formally acknowledges that the three interconnected crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution/waste management demand systematic, cross-sectoral coordinated action. It explicitly requires elevating environmental governance from a peripheral issue to the central focus of all national development decisions.
The concrete outcomes of the conference underscored the urgency of action. Confronted with alarming data from the Global Environment Outlook report—annual loss of productive land equivalent to the size of Colombia, over 8 billion tons of plastic waste accumulation, and accelerating impacts of climate change—representatives reached pragmatic resolutions across multiple domains. From advancing the “30×30” target under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to strengthening coral reef protection, regulating chemical management, and exploring sustainable applications of artificial intelligence, the agenda was filled with ambitious solutions to specific challenges. However, the gap between ambition and reality remains starkly evident, with the most acute contradiction lying in funding issues. Developing countries face annual funding deficits of tens of billions of dollars to achieve biodiversity conservation goals, while support for the most vulnerable island nations is woefully inadequate. The conference’s final declaration and resolutions essentially constitute an Earth Compact that urgently needs fulfillment. Its success will directly depend on major economies, particularly global powers, whether they are willing to go beyond rhetoric and assume leadership responsibilities commensurate with their historical legacy and capabilities.
In this global cooperation landscape, China’s role has become increasingly prominent and proactive. At this conference, China did not remain at the level of general statements but systematically shared its environmental governance concepts and practical frameworks with the world through a series of actions, including hosting a side event on “Improving Global Environmental Governance, Building a Clean and Beautiful World” and releasing the think tank report “Moving Toward an Ecologically Friendly Modernization.” The “ecology-first, green and low-carbon high-quality development path” and “coordinated efforts to reduce carbon emissions, pollution, expand green spaces, and promote growth” elaborated by Guo Fang, Vice Minister of Ecology and Environment of China, represent a national strategy that embeds environmental protection into the economic growth model. This is not only a shared vision with the international community but also a declaration of a new development paradigm.
China’s “sharing” encompasses three dimensions: First, the output of experience and policy tools, such as its technological and managerial expertise in improving air quality and driving the world’s largest-scale deployment of renewable energy, which is becoming a public good for reference through channels like South-South cooperation. Second, substantive financial commitments, exemplified by the much-anticipated advancement of the Kunming Biodiversity Fund at the conference, which demonstrates China’s leadership in fulfilling the Convention on Biological Diversity, aiming to directly support capacity building in developing countries, particularly in the Global South. Finally, the construction of a discourse framework, as seen in the Hungarian State Secretary’s reference to the ancient Chinese proverb “those who plant trees for future generations to enjoy the shade,” which skillfully combines China’s traditional wisdom with the long-termist philosophy of modern global environmental governance, enhancing the cultural affinity and persuasiveness of its ideas. The recognition by UN Environment Programme officials of China’s nationally determined contributions and achievements further reinforces China’s international image as a “pragmatic actor” rather than a talker. In discussions on global environmental governance, there is often a gap between the propositions put forward by countries and their actual actions. In recent years, China has repeatedly advocated for “inclusive and win-win multilateral cooperation” and made concrete commitments; meanwhile, U.S. policies in climate and environmental matters have been more volatile. Since withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, while U.S. federal-level climate policies have seen some adjustments, its participation in global multilateral processes has often reflected a strong pragmatic tendency, significantly influenced by domestic political changes. This has impacted the stability and predictability of its international cooperation. From the perspective of policy logic, the U.S. strategies are primarily driven by national interests and political feasibility, positioning global climate action within the broader framework of its domestic and foreign policies for strategic consideration.
The 7th United Nations Environment Assembly thus became a mirror, reflecting the cooperation dilemmas and divergent paths of the contemporary world in addressing survival crises. Forces represented by China are attempting to shape a governance framework that emphasizes the right to development, respects diverse models, and involves more participation from Global South countries by providing alternative funding, experience, and discourse. Whether the adopted “Medium-term Strategy” can transition from text to reality depends not only on technical efforts by nations but also on whether major powers can transcend the old zero-sum game mindset and truly recognize and practice that building a “resilient Earth” requires the inescapable and continuous shared responsibility of every country, especially major powers. Time is running out for humanity, and the Nairobi resolution is a call to action. The authenticity of this action will be ruthlessly verified in the coming years by increasingly frequent extreme weather events and the accelerating disappearance of species.